tinyarena:Would you all kindly STFUHow are we gonna get a good old-fashioned 'Space Race' going again with that kinda attitude?!CHINKS ON OUR MOON!WE CANNOT ALLOW A MOON MISSILE GAP!BACK TO THE MOON FUTURE!

Agreed. If it takes threats of weaponizing the Moon to jump start better space exploration then I'm all for it.

What would be the point of a missile base on the moon? It can't hit anything on Earth or even in orbit around Earth. There's nothing out there.

The moon looks big and close, but it's 250,000 miles away. That's far. It took three days for Apollo astronauts to get there. That's three whole days of just drifting through empty nothingness, from one planet to its satellite.

To give you some sense of scale, if the Earth is a marble, the moon is a small pea and is orbiting from about a foot away. 12 inches between a marble and a pea..... which is really really far when you consider that we are the size of an atom at that scale. Our furthest geosynchronous satellites are only about one inch away. Except for a few science probes, there is nothing out there beyond that.

So what would be the point of weaponizing a region of space that is over 200,000 miles away from the furthest object of interest?

tinyarena:Infernalist: stratagos: threadjackistan: JesseL: Why in the world would you want to launch missiles from the moon instead of your own orbital platform?

Flight time from the moon to Earth is going to be pretty long - the Apollo missions took at least about three days. You could reduce that but not by a huge amount.

You'll be working against a gravity well.

Any launch is going to be easy to detect.

The value of putting a missle base on the moon would be in second or "revenge" strike capabilities. Basically so your opponent couldnt hope to launch a surprise attack and destroy your ability to retaliate.

Subs are cheaper, by several orders of magnitude

This. And far more likely to hit what they're aiming at.

Would you all kindly STFUHow are we gonna get a good old-fashioned 'Space Race' going again with that kinda attitude?!CHINKS ON OUR MOON!WE CANNOT ALLOW A MOON MISSILE GAP!BACK TO THE MOON FUTURE!

fark the space race. Let someone else make the advances, we can steal it from them. Make the NSA earn their goddam pay

Ishkur:What would be the point of a missile base on the moon? It can't hit anything on Earth or even in orbit around Earth. There's nothing out there.

The moon looks big and close, but it's 250,000 miles away. That's far. It took three days for Apollo astronauts to get there. That's three whole days of just drifting through empty nothingness, from one planet to its satellite.

To give you some sense of scale, if the Earth is a marble, the moon is a small pea and is orbiting from about a foot away. 12 inches between a marble and a pea..... which is really really far when you consider that we are the size of an atom at that scale. Our furthest geosynchronous satellites are only about one inch away. Except for a few science probes, there is nothing out there beyond that.

So what would be the point of weaponizing a region of space that is over 200,000 miles away from the furthest object of interest?

I literally just explained that. Others pointed out flaws in the idea, but the line of thought behind it is in the thread.

The moon is an extraordinarily hostile environment. NASA explored the possibility of sending a long term rover to the moon like they have sent to Mars. They gave up after realizing that it would die in a matter of weeks and they couldn't do anything to prevent it. Lunar dust is hard enough and sharp enough to etch aluminum and it is electrostatically charged so it will be attracted to anything we send up there. It will get into any moving parts and grind them to a halt.

The missiles would take days to reach the Earth. You would have to slow the missile, put it into earth orbit and then control the re-entry. If you didn't the warhead would vaporize no matter how much shielding you put on it, re-entry speed would be way too high.

This story is complete science fiction created by people with no back ground in the subject.

That does not necessarily mean that China won't try it. Politicians don't know science and often don't listen to those who do know it. But if China does try it there will be much laughter at NASA and the DOD.

The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a treaty that forms the basis of international space law. The treaty was opened for signature in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union on 27 January 1967, and entered into force on 10 October 1967. As of May 2013, 102 countries are states parties to the treaty, while another 27 have signed the treaty but have not completed ratification.The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Art.IV). However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit. The treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries and shall be free for exploration and use by all the States.The treaty explicitly forbids any government from claiming a celestial resource such as the Moon or a planet, claiming that they are the common heritage of mankind. Art. II of the Treaty states that "outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". However, the State that launches a space object retains jurisdiction and control over that object. The State is also liable for damages caused by their space object.

In case no one else pointed it out, both the US & USSR had the exact same idea back in the 50s, but by the end of the 60's both gave up on it. Why?

The ludicrous cost to establish such a base. The ludicrous cost to maintain such a base. Ludacris The fact that the base would spend something like less than 25% of it's time in a near optimal position relative to intended targets. The aforementioned excessive flight time, giving the intended target plenty of time to launch terrestrial based missiles. The aforementioned excessive flight time, giving the intended target plenty of time to shoot down the incoming missiles. The aforementioned excessive flight time, giving the intended target plenty of time to gloat and party while the other guys were turned to molten glass by missile launched from subs or trains or airplanes or underground silos.

But yeah, it's really real and China's really gonna' do it so let's all wet our pants.

Ishkur: What would be the point of a missile base on the moon? It can't hit anything on Earth or even in orbit around Earth. There's nothing out there.

The moon looks big and close, but it's 250,000 miles away. That's far. It took three days for Apollo astronauts to get there. That's three whole days of just drifting through empty nothingness, from one planet to its satellite.

To give you some sense of scale, if the Earth is a marble, the moon is a small pea and is orbiting from about a foot away. 12 inches between a marble and a pea..... which is really really far when you consider that we are the size of an atom at that scale. Our furthest geosynchronous satellites are only about one inch away. Except for a few science probes, there is nothing out there beyond that.

So what would be the point of weaponizing a region of space that is over 200,000 miles away from the furthest object of interest?

"What would be the point..." Where's your sense of adventure! There are worlds to conquer out there. Don't you want to look up, one day, and say, "Dude, there are farking nukes on the moon, man!!" And you're talking to your daughter. Well, don't you?

threadjackistan:I literally just explained that. Others pointed out flaws in the idea, but the line of thought behind it is in the thread.

Yeah, like I read the entire thread.

Although an outer space Dead Hand deterrent makes a lot of sense for purposes of mutually assured destruction, there is absolutely no point to putting it 11 times further than it needs to be, under the duress of another gravitational body where it would take orders of magnitude more power for it to get here. Otherwise, why stop at the moon? Let's arm Mars or Cruithne, so we can retaliate a year and a half after our civilization has been turned to ash.

"The expert, from the China National Space Administration's Lunar Exploration Programme Centre, told a Chinese newspaper that the moon could be used as a military base from which to fire missiles at the Earth.The alleged plans have been likened to the creation of the Death Star in the Star Wars films, a fictional space station capable of destroying planets with its giant laser and home to a huge army led by Darth Vader."

some_beer_drinker:[www.empireonline.com image 355x400]knows a thing or two about heavily armed battlestations...wait....

real_headhoncho:One expert told the newspaper that the Earth's natural satellite could be turned into a giant weapon, which could be used as a military base where missiles could be directed at targets on Earth...

[www.seoboy.com image 300x195]

farkingismybusiness:[cbs929dave.files.wordpress.com image 300x223]We will call it the Alan Parsons Project.